Out of morbid curiosity, could you run the same report and show where Dirk falls. The only reason I ask is that we know that Bargnani isn't a 'traditional' big, so I'm interested in a comparison to a big with a similar style (especially the player he's most often been compared to).

Bargnani's rebounding numbers and offensive efficiencies have often been excused due to his style of play, while the intangible benefits of things like 'spreading the floor' are pointed out as advantages that aren't captured by stats. It would be very telling to see where Dirk falls, relative to Bargnani.

Out of morbid curiosity, could you run the same report and show where Dirk falls. The only reason I ask is that we know that Bargnani isn't a 'traditional' big, so I'm interested in a comparison to a big with a similar style (especially the player he's most often been compared to).

Bargnani's rebounding numbers and offensive efficiencies have often been excused due to his style of play, while the intangible benefits of things like 'spreading the floor' are pointed out as advantages that aren't captured by stats. It would be very telling to see where Dirk falls, relative to Bargnani.

Thanks!

It's a good point actually, since Bargnani is really known for his offense... or at least, he's supposed to be. I've moved up the offensive categories and defensive have been pushed down. I've also bolded the ones where Dirk is significantly better than Bargnani.

It's a good point actually, since Bargnani is really known for his offense... or at least, he's supposed to be. I've moved up the offensive categories and defensive have been pushed down. I've also bolded the ones where Dirk is significantly better than Bargnani.

Yikes, thanks for that. For me, those stats are even more gruesome with the Dirk comparisons. I've never been as hard on his rebounding numbers as others, simply because his style of play, nor am I a big fan of defensive stats in general. However, the win-share stats, PER, offensive rating, assists & steals really point out 2 things for me: just how ineffcient a scorer he is and how little he contributes besides scoring.

Can anyone tell me how to explain the Raptors are better without Bargnani besides using wins/losses and statistics?

I am still waiting for a response as to how to properly explain this.

As I've read through this thread, I think I've come up with a way to explain the issues that some people have had with various arguments made by various posters on both sides of the debate - for the record, I thought Jimmie did a good job trying to explain it yesterday.

I also think I should start by saying that my assumption is based on the fact that so much blame & "hate" has been dumped on Bargnani over the years - some well deserved and some well beyond his control (ie: draft position, salary) - that the "piling on" can get frustrating to take, even when the bulk of the pile is quite legit.

Basically, I think the personal stats (like those in ebrian's recent posts) and unbiased observations of game action are accepted as factual evidenciary proof of Bargnani's "suckage". By this, I mean stats like PER, Offensive Rating, Offensive Win Share, Defensive Win Share, as examples, and observations such as poor help defense. Those stats are based purely on the indivdual and all pass the eye-test, without bias.

However, I think people take issue with circumstantial evidence, such as the team's record in games when he scores a certain # of points, for example. These sorts of coincidental stats show no direct correlation between Bargnani and the outcome. These sorts of 'stats' can be found to support any argument about any player, good or bad. For example, there might be a statline that shows the team is 8-0 all-time when Bargnani scores 7 points and has 3 rebounds, but that doesn't mean the team should adopt a strategy to ensure Bargnani hits exactly that statline and then gets benched, since it's purely coincidental; no game is ever decided by a single player's statline.

Even the most vocal Bargnani supporter, past or present, can accept irrefutable evidence based on stats that observation can validate. However, after all the years of "Bargnani bashing", it can get frustrating to have that compounded by purely circumstantial evidence, be it hand-picked coincidental statlines or factors beyond Bargnani's control.

Hopefully that makes sense and helps shed some light on the ongoing discussion...

It's a good point actually, since Bargnani is really known for his offense... or at least, he's supposed to be. I've moved up the offensive categories and defensive have been pushed down. I've also bolded the ones where Dirk is significantly better than Bargnani.

One of the things that really stands out for me is the assists. Yes, he's bad at rebounding, but it's just as damning that he's this bad at assisting as well. We knew that of course, but this is one more of those things he showed promise in in his first years (in my opinion) that didn't develop at all.

As I've read through this thread, I think I've come up with a way to explain the issues that some people have had with various arguments made by various posters on both sides of the debate - for the record, I thought Jimmie did a good job trying to explain it yesterday.

I also think I should start by saying that my assumption is based on the fact that so much blame & "hate" has been dumped on Bargnani over the years - some well deserved and some well beyond his control (ie: draft position, salary) - that the "piling on" can get frustrating to take, even when the bulk of the pile is quite legit.

Basically, I think the personal stats (like those in ebrian's recent posts) and unbiased observations of game action are accepted as factual evidenciary proof of Bargnani's "suckage". By this, I mean stats like PER, Offensive Rating, Offensive Win Share, Defensive Win Share, as examples, and observations such as poor help defense. Those stats are based purely on the indivdual and all pass the eye-test, without bias.

However, I think people take issue with circumstantial evidence, such as the team's record in games when he scores a certain # of points, for example. These sorts of coincidental stats show no direct correlation between Bargnani and the outcome. These sorts of 'stats' can be found to support any argument about any player, good or bad. For example, there might be a statline that shows the team is 8-0 all-time when Bargnani scores 7 points and has 3 rebounds, but that doesn't mean the team should adopt a strategy to ensure Bargnani hits exactly that statline and then gets benched, since it's purely coincidental.

Even the most vocal Bargnani supporter, past or present, can accept unrefutable evidence based on stats that observation can validate. However, after all the years of "Bargnani bashing", it can get frustrating to have that compounded by purely circumstantial evidence, be it hand-picked coincidental statlines or factors beyond Bargnani's control.

Hopefully that makes sense and helps shed some light on the ongoing discussion...

Well said.

I agree almost completely except for the use of so called advanced stats like PER and WS. I don't like those at all, and I personally don't consider these advanced stats at all, but reductionist stats. Real advanced stats are adding information instead of reducing information to a single number which is derived in a debatable fashion. Most of those don't add anything to boxscore stats. Off those kind of stats I'm more receptive to things like Offensive and Defensive Rating over the course of more than one season as they signal trends that boxscore stats don't necessarily give.

As I've read through this thread, I think I've come up with a way to explain the issues that some people have had with various arguments made by various posters on both sides of the debate - for the record, I thought Jimmie did a good job trying to explain it yesterday.

I also think I should start by saying that my assumption is based on the fact that so much blame & "hate" has been dumped on Bargnani over the years - some well deserved and some well beyond his control (ie: draft position, salary) - that the "piling on" can get frustrating to take, even when the bulk of the pile is quite legit.

Basically, I think the personal stats (like those in ebrian's recent posts) and unbiased observations of game action are accepted as factual evidenciary proof of Bargnani's "suckage". By this, I mean stats like PER, Offensive Rating, Offensive Win Share, Defensive Win Share, as examples, and observations such as poor help defense. Those stats are based purely on the indivdual and all pass the eye-test, without bias.

However, I think people take issue with circumstantial evidence, such as the team's record in games when he scores a certain # of points, for example. These sorts of coincidental stats show no direct correlation between Bargnani and the outcome. These sorts of 'stats' can be found to support any argument about any player, good or bad. For example, there might be a statline that shows the team is 8-0 all-time when Bargnani scores 7 points and has 3 rebounds, but that doesn't mean the team should adopt a strategy to ensure Bargnani hits exactly that statline and then gets benched, since it's purely coincidental; no game is ever decided by a single player's statline.

Even the most vocal Bargnani supporter, past or present, can accept irrefutable evidence based on stats that observation can validate. However, after all the years of "Bargnani bashing", it can get frustrating to have that compounded by purely circumstantial evidence, be it hand-picked coincidental statlines or factors beyond Bargnani's control.

Hopefully that makes sense and helps shed some light on the ongoing discussion...

I disagree with the bolded. I think the stats do indeed show a correlation....they just don't necessarily establish causation.

The correlation being that it's harder to win games with Bargnani a key contributor (which is different than saying Bargnani is the sole reason why we lose).

All the more reason why arguing against the methodology was such a waste of time/effort, if we all agree on the conclusion.

"2 plus 2 equals 4"

"You're crazy! 3 plus 1 equals 4!"

We keep disagreeing about this. You give two ways of coming to a conclusiong that are both right. Let me try (with emphasis on 'try') to give a similar analogy. Suppose you have a table with 4 pies. Now someone says "see, there are 3 on the left and 2 on the right side of the table; together that makes 4 pies." I agree that there are 4 pies, so I should not say anything about the way this guy came to the same conclusion as me?

I disagree with the bolded. I think the stats do indeed show a correlation....they just don't necessarily establish causation.

The correlation being that it's harder to win games with Bargnani a key contributor (which is different than saying Bargnani is the sole reason why we lose).

You're absolutely right. I realized that I meant they only show a correlation (same thing as being coincidental), without establishing a causality - hence, circumstantial evidence.

There's clearly enough hard evidence, so there's no reason to even have to resort to the more circumstantial evidence at this point. And that's coming from one of the most vocal supporters of Bargnani, up until this season.

I disagree with the bolded. I think the stats do indeed show a correlation....they just don't necessarily establish causation.

The correlation being that it's harder to win games with Bargnani a key contributor (which is different than saying Bargnani is the sole reason why we lose).

Except of course, that when looked at these stats over the complete career of Bargnani the team is actually much better when he scores 20 points or more, which makes this much smaller sample size extra suspect.

An added critique of these kind of stats is that they're very crude, e.g. it would be much better to look at his effeciency in relation to the amount of shots he takes.

We keep disagreeing about this. You give two ways of coming to a conclusiong that are both right. Let me try (with emphasis on 'try') to give a similar analogy. Suppose you have a table with 4 pies. Now someone says "see, there are 3 on the left and 2 on the right side of the table; together that makes 4 pies." I agree that there are 4 pies, so I should not say anything about the way this guy came to the same conclusion as me?

I understand the point you're trying to make. Our difference in opinion stems from whether or not we accept Matt's evidence to be truthful or not.

I believe that they are indicative of Bargnani's value to this team, and that they shouldn't be dismissed based on the somewhat poor counter examples provided in this thread.

Except of course, that when looked at these stats over the complete career of Bargnani the team is actually much better when he scores 20 points or more, which makes this much smaller sample size extra suspect.

An added critique of these kind of stats is that they're very crude, e.g. it would be much better to look at his effeciency in relation to the amount of shots he takes.

Looking at Bargnani's whole career makes sense (statistically speaking), but doing so doesn't take into account that a player can change (in this case, for the worse) since early in his career. At what point does a larger sample size becomes a less accurate indicator of Bargnani's value today?

I think the point is that there's enough statsitical and observable reasons to want Bargnani traded, that there's no reason to even resort to the cherry-picked stat such as the team's record in games when Bargnani scores a certain number of points.

Basing an opinion on circumstantial arguments only weakens your point and invites criticism. I think that's what p00ka had issue with, since you can find similar statlines to "prove" the same argument for players like Jordan and Kobe, that are being used to support the stance of #tradeBargnani, but anybody would be a complete buffoon to jump on a #tradeJordan or #tradeKobe bandwagon. That's why such arguments stink much more of "hating", even when they're being presented as statistical, with no intended "hating".